Are were clamoring for deregulation a little too hard?

[RCA]

In the uproar over regulation vs. deregulation, do we tend to cling to deregulation a little to strongly? I mean, in order to enforce crimes or torts, regulation must be present or if not, tort reform must take place correct? I think instead of constantly clamoring for complete deregulation, we need to be trying to prevent excess regulation. Do you all see where I'm going with this?

[jmlfod87]

no, methinks you need to reread your econ lit.

[KenInMontiMN]

Yes. Good, slow, gradual light-handed regulation is the key, and critical. No complex machinery can ever avoid running completely amok eventually, without it. Regulation implies general parameters you wish to operate within, so defining the desired operative limits is always the first step in making control and regulatory structural decisions.

A good commodity-based currency standard, after all, is a form of regulation that limits deficit and debt. Good idea, or bad? You decide.

[Jeremy]

There is "good regulation".... duh. Regulate fraud, etc.

But if a business makes a "bad decision," that's its choice.

[RCA]

It's the "duh" stuff that I'm referring to. In order to have the "duh" regulations, there must be, well, regulations. I don't hear this point brought up in the daily clamoring for "DEREGULATION!".

[jmlfod87]

only regulations that are constructive are regulations that prohibit acts of aggression. all other regulations are not conduvice to production and economic growth.

[Dave39168]

Whenever I'm debating someone and they say, "we need more regulation! lack or regulation is what got us into this mess."

I turn it around and say, "we don't need more regulation, we just need to enforce the laws we already have to prevent fraud, shady bookkeeping, enforce paying of debts, etc"

[RCA]

only regulations that are constructive are regulations that prohibit acts of aggression. all other regulations are not conduvice to production and economic growth.

It's these kind of open-ended desires that have a tendency to clash with reality, especially in the gray areas. For instance, we all no the Fed is a good example of bad regulation, but that's the lowest hanging fruit of all the regulation, yet we tend to use that example as the reason why ALL regulation is bad. It's in the day-to-day regulation of various areas that doesn't always fit into a good/bad scenario.

[Jeremy]

It's the "duh" stuff that I'm referring to. In order to have the "duh" regulations, there must be, well, regulations. I don't hear this point brought up in the daily clamoring for "DEREGULATION!".

When we say that we're talking about the government planning everything because that's communism. The government's job is to enforce contracts not alter them and mess with everything

[RCA]

Whenever I'm debating someone and they say, "we need more regulation! lack or regulation is what got us into this mess."

I turn it around and say, "we don't need more regulation, we just need to enforce the laws we already have to prevent fraud, shady bookkeeping, enforce paying of debts, etc"

That rebuttal sounds a little closer to reality than the constant "it's not deregulation that's the problem, it's REGULATION!"

[RCA]

When we say that we're talking about the government planning everything because that's communism. The government's job is to enforce contracts not alter them and mess with everything

Again, this sounds a little closer to reality, but most people on here don't explain what they mean and new users might think we are a bunch of anarchists (even though some obviously are).

[Mini-Me]

There is "good regulation".... duh. Regulate fraud, etc.

But if a business makes a "bad decision," that's its choice.

This is where I think people forget that not all laws are regulation. When I think of regulation, I think of arbitrary rules, especially instated at the federal level, which blatantly violate the property rights and liberty of both business owners and others in order to supposedly facilitate some "noble cause." In contrast, laws against fraud have been around for ages, and they fall more within the realm of common law, e.g. "don't kill your neighbor" law. Fraud in particular is basically the deliberate and/or malicious breach of a contract, whether explicit or implicit. These kind of laws are entirely valid, because they protect against aggression/"violence." In addition, it's also important to remember that the proper level of government for legislating and enforcing them is the state level.

At the federal level, absolutely no business regulation is needed nor authorized by the Constitution, save for the restriction that states may prevent states from conducting trade wars and erecting tariffs against each other. There's a very good reason for this: It's because when you allow Congress to legislate any arbitrary regulatory legislation, you're not just authorizing them to make "good" laws. You're simultaneously authorizing them to legislate ANY arbitrary law affecting industry, and by merely giving them this power to use their best judgment, you're opening Pandora's Box. First of all, it's important to remember that even benevolent and well-intentioned legislators are not versed in economics - and when they have some clue, they've been given their crash course by the same interventionist economists that engineered our ongoing meltdown right now. Because of this, legislators are very short-sighted and think nothing of instating legislation that they "think" will help some perceived problem in the market place, when that very law is likely to create other more significant problems in other areas or even undermine its primary purpose. Certain laws like minimum wage "sound good" to legislators for helping the poor, but they ultimately make things worse. In reality, almost all business regulations have such unforeseen and undesirable consequences (and legislators hardly ever pinpoint their cause, so they "fix" them with more regulation), because among other things, almost all regulations raise the cost of market entry and hamper competition (there are books about how even antitrust laws do this, by the way - the very laws that were meant to foster competition). This is because it not only costs money to comply with regulations, it costs money to do legal work and prove to the government that you're complying. Up to a point, incumbent corporations love regulations and will even lobby for them or make sure they have a hand in deciding some of the details, because regulations will restrain most of their competition (of course, past that point, regulations will just cut into their profits - it's a double-edged sword). This is where you get into corporate welfare and regulation that's specifically malevolent. In fact, it's important to realize that corporate personhood itself is illegitimate federal regulation which unfairly limits the liability of corporate shareholders - even to less than their stake in the company - at the expense of other members of the population. The bottom line is...there's no such thing is permitting "moderate" regulation. If you allow Congress to "use their best judgment" and legislate any arbitrary regulation, their very authority to do so will land us exactly where we are now: Corporate fascism.

[Ben2008]

In the uproar over regulation vs. deregulation, do we tend to cling to deregulation a little to strongly? I mean, in order to enforce crimes or torts, regulation must be present or if not, tort reform must take place correct? I think instead of constantly clamoring for complete deregulation, we need to be trying to prevent excess regulation. Do you all see where I'm going with this?

I don't think laws against stealing and fraud are considered "regulation." Regulation from what I understand refers to all government intervention in markets other than that.

[powerofreason]

no arbitrary govt. regulation > arbitrary govt. regulation

[jmlfod87]

Again, this sounds a little closer to reality, but most people on here don't explain what they mean and new users might think we are a bunch of anarchists (even though some obviously are).


Its not our obligation to explain von Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard for you. There is no reason for the government to regulate the economy. All the government needs to do is enforce property rights. Read your Austrian economics.

Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, in case you didn't know. All Austrian economists are.

[powerofreason]

Its not our obligation to explain von Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard for you. There is no reason for the government to regulate the economy. All the government needs to do is enforce property rights. Read your Austrian economics.

Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, in case you didn't know. All Austrian economists are.

Mises wasn't. Don't think Hayek was either.

[Mini-Me]

Its not our obligation to explain von Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard for you. There is no reason for the government to regulate the economy. All the government needs to do is enforce property rights. Read your Austrian economics.

Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, in case you didn't know. All Austrian economists are.

Actually, Ron Paul is not an anarcho-capitalist, and as far as I know, neither were any of the people you mentioned except for Rothbard. Anarcho-capitalism implies no state whatsoever, where rights are defended by private courts, private police agencies, etc. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is more of a right-libertarian and a Constitutionalist who believes the government alone should enforce the laws. Yes, he believes in a free market where property rights are respected, but that alone does not make an anarcho-capitalist.

[Jeremy]

the word regulate could mean various things... depends who you're talking too

[jmlfod87]

von Mises and Hayek were older genration libertarians. Modern Austrians subscrube to stateless society. All of Ron Paul's closest friends are ancaps. His former Chief of Staff, Lew Rockwell, is an ancap. Most of the speakers at the Rally for the Republic were ancaps.

Ron Paul is not a Constitutionalist because he has respect for government, he is a Constitutonalist because he has respect for liberty. The Constitution is one of the greatest libertarian documents ever written.

The only thing that makes Ron Paul "lean right" is his opposition to abortion, which is because he is religious and believes a fetus is a human being.

Anyone who regularly reads Ron Paul's writings knows he believes there is nothing the government can do that free enterprise can't do better. That is the axiom of anarcho-capitalism. Free enterprise > governmental enterprise.

[torchbearer]

huh?
At what time does the government have any right to regulate the market?
None.

It may regulate interstate trade to ensure the free flow of goods between the states. (not the other way around, like drug laws)

[powerofreason]

von Mises and Hayek were older genration libertarians. Modern Austrians subscrube to stateless society. All of Ron Paul's closest friends are ancaps. His former Chief of Staff, Lew Rockwell, is an ancap. Most of the speakers at the Rally for the Republic were ancaps.

Ron Paul is not a Constitutionalist because he has respect for government, he is a Constitutonalist because he has respect for liberty. The Constitution is one of the greatest libertarian documents ever written.

The only thing that makes Ron Paul "lean right" is his opposition to abortion, which is because he is religious and believes a fetus is a human being.

Anyone who regularly reads Ron Paul's writings knows he believes there is nothing the government can do that free enterprise can't do better. That is the axiom of anarcho-capitalism. Free enterprise > governmental enterprise.

Its true that all the modern Austrians are ancap. It wouldn't surprise me if RP was a closet ancap. Not that it matters, really.

[torchbearer]

Its true that all the modern Austrians are ancap. It wouldn't surprise me if RP was a closet ancap. Not that it matters, really.

In Louisiana its called Laissez Faire economics... or in other words a free market.
Nothing anarchist about people voluntarily trading with each other.
Who would enforce contracts if there wasn't an independent third party type government agency entrusted with such authority over contracts?

You'd have drive-by shootings over every business deal gone bad without courts.

[Mini-Me]

von Mises and Hayek were older genration libertarians. Modern Austrians subscrube to stateless society. All of Ron Paul's closest friends are ancaps. His former Chief of Staff, Lew Rockwell, is an ancap. Most of the speakers at the Rally for the Republic were ancaps.

Ron Paul is not a Constitutionalist because he has respect for government, he is a Constitutonalist because he has respect for liberty. The Constitution is one of the greatest libertarian documents ever written.

The only thing that makes Ron Paul "lean right" is his opposition to abortion, which is because he is religious and believes a fetus is a human being.

Anyone who regularly reads Ron Paul's writings knows he believes there is nothing the government can do that free enterprise can't do better. That is the axiom of anarcho-capitalism. Free enterprise > governmental enterprise.

...except for the protection of people's rights, which includes the court system, the military, the police, etc...along with diplomacy with other nations through the state. In addition, Ron would keep a small intelligence agency at the federal level by bringing the CIA back to its original mission. As far as schools go, he obviously wants to eliminate federal control and bring control back to the states and local school boards, but I've never heard him call for the abolition of public schools, though (in the federalist Constitutional system he envisions, I'm sure he feels that's just a decision that states and local communities can legitimately make for themselves - in contrast, anarcho-capitalists would decry such "aggression" by even local communities taxing for schools). Furthermore, I haven't heard him call for the abolition of public roads, either...and there are probably about fifty other differences I haven't thought to include.

He's certainly an advocate of the free market, but he is not in fact an anarcho-capitalist. I am more libertarian than Ron Paul and I advocate an even smaller government than he does, yet even I am not an anarcho-capitalist.

[torchbearer]

...except for the protection of people's rights, which includes the court system, the military, the police, etc...along with diplomacy with other nations through the state. In addition, Ron would keep a small intelligence agency at the federal level by bringing the CIA back to its original mission. As far as schools go, he obviously wants to eliminate federal control and bring control back to the states and local school boards, but I've never heard him call for the abolition of public schools, though (in the federalist Constitutional system he envisions, I'm sure that's just a decision that states and local communities can legitimately make for themselves - in contrast, anarcho-capitalists would decry such "aggression" by even local communities). Furthermore, I haven't heard him call for the abolition of public roads, either.

He's certainly an advocate of the free market, but he is not in fact an anarcho-capitalist. I am more libertarian than Ron Paul and I advocate an even smaller government than he does, yet even I am not an anarcho-capitalist.

yeah- what he said, and what I said in the post above it.
Anarchist forget in their little utopia, there is no protection of the individual from fraud or mobs. Without that minimal protection, there is no property and their are no rights.

[jyakulis]

when you advocate sound money do you really need regulation? i mean banks don't create credit out of thin air. hence would all these different derivatives and debt instruments they created have ever existed? if we had sound money they'd be sued for fraud.

i mean you legalize fraud through the federal reserve act. then everyone cries foul when the looters run wild. well, what did you expect. just my two cents....

[powerofreason]

I'm not in the mood to write up a long moral and practical defense of Rothbard style libertarianism. I'll just say that I would be fine with it if we could have a minarchy forever, but its utopian to think that nice people will always be in charge of government and never try to expand it. Or that lazy slobs will not vote themselves your money in the form of welfare checks. If you're curious about how such a voluntary and stateless society might function, I would suggest reading For a New Liberty by Rothbard. Theres also mises.org and the freedomain radio podcasts.

Somalia: Craphole of crapholes better off without a government.

http://mises.org/story/2701
http://mises.org/story/2066

[jmlfod87]

yeah- what he said, and what I said in the post above it.
Anarchist forget in their little utopia, there is no protection of the individual from fraud or mobs. Without that minimal protection, there is no property and their are no rights.


I rather having the mafiarun the country than a government. Because the only difference between the mafia and thr government is atleast the mafia has competition.

In an anarchist society there would be property because you would have private companies enforcing property rights. The only difference betwen an anarcho-capitalist society and YOUR ideal society is that ancaps believe contracts and laws should be enforced by private companies, not a government monopoly.

Having competition in the law enforcement industry would guarantee a more efficient, cost-effective, fair, and less oppressive justice system.

[torchbearer]

I rather having the mafiarun the country than a government. Because the only difference between the mafia and thr government is atleast the mafia has competition.

In an anarchist society there would be property because you would have private companies enforcing property rights. The only difference betwen an anarcho-capitalist society and YOUR ideal society is that ancaps believe contracts and laws should be enforced by private companies, not a government monopoly.

Having competition in the law enforcement industry would guarantee a more efficient, cost-effective, fair, and less oppressive justice system.

When the founders were debating what government they should install, why didn't anarchy sound too appealing?
Because it is mob rule. Rule of the jungle. Might makes right.

What was the closes thing they could get to anarchy and still have protection of the individual. A constitutional republic.

The only problem, any advance form of self-government requires that each person be educated enough to keep its constitutional government... well, constitutional.
Can it happen? It is more likely to happen that a bunch of individuals with no government not having some evil freak decide he and his gang is going to take everything from you by force.
You want mob rule... well, you have it right now. Its done by vote and its called democracy. You are welcomed to it.

[exomniac]

This is what I do. Look at any law, and ask yourself, "Does this law protect any one's rights?" and "Does it infringe on any one's rights?" Keep in mind that our rights are simply our lives, our liberty, and our property. We'll simply define liberty as the right to do as you please, as long as you are not violating any persons rights.

This is why the Federal Income Tax is wrong. You work for a wage, and a portion of it must be given to others, or you go to jail (or shot dead in your home). That's what we call "legal plunder". The government makes theft legal, as long as its the government that is taking the money.

By purchasing an AK-47 I am not violating any persons rights. By smoking a pound of weed over the weekend on a camping trip, I am not violating any persons rights. Tinting my windows, not wearing my seatbelt, smoking in the bar, marrying someone of the same sex, taking photographs, practicing religion, staying out past 10, giving the finger to a cop.

This is just one philosophy. It's simply the idea that the law is created only to serve justice to those that violate another persons rights. This should be especially true on a federal level.

As far as economic regulation goes?

1. The government had no business pushing institutions to give loans out to low-income consumers.

2. The bailout was a gross extension of "legal plunder". So gross. I think I'm gonna vomi...

3. Read above. No intervention unless rights are being violated. I dont know why even typed this 3-point list.

[KenInMontiMN]

An interesting discussion, but in the end it always comes back to what limits are acceptable for what would, if completely unregulated, be pure libertarian freedom, social and economic, to range within. Some say no limits, others say any limits the majority can be persuaded to approve, by whatever means. Get everybody to agree on what the limits should actually look like in all matters and the societal machinery can certainly be built to accomplish exactly that. It's the agreement part that's the rub.

In the unregulated economy, after all, anyone is free to control the printing of currency presumably from their home printer, when they so chose. Of course how much value it would have would be subject to the other guy's confidence in the stuff in the proposed transaction. And of course if the stronger guy just enforces his will regardless of the approval of the weaker guy with regard to the transaction, without any regulatory authority then that's just how it goes, and the weaker guy has to look for someone weaker still to prey upon to recoup.

The notion that some types of regulation aren't regulation and other types of regulation are regulation is complete nonsense of course. All regulation is regulation, and in the end it always comes back to the question of limits upon complete freedom, and if we're going to set them, where to set them, how to set them.

[jmlfod87]

When the founders were debating what government they should install, why didn't anarchy sound too appealing?
Because it is mob rule. Rule of the jungle. Might makes right.
lol 'when the founders were debating what government to install', clearly by the simple fact that they were debating to install government shows that they were all statists to a degree.

FYI: The founders werent gods, they were human beings. Austrian economics hand't even been invented yet.


Anarchy is not mob rule. Democracy is mob rule. Anarchy is the rule of those who are the smartest, strongest, and most determined, meaning THE FITTEST. Might does not make right under an anarchy unless the people want it to. If people want minimal government they will purchase justice from a less-oppressive company.


The only problem, any advance form of self-government requires that each person be educated enough to keep its constitutional government... well, constitutional.
Can it happen? It is more likely to happen that a bunch of individuals with no government not having some evil freak decide he and his gang is going to take everything from you by force.
You want mob rule... well, you have it right now. Its done by vote and its called democracy. You are welcomed to it.

LOL again. You prove my point, that Constitutional government descends into mob rule.

You don't seem to understand the concept of competition. Competition means instead of having ONE EVIL FREAK = "The government", you have TWO OR MORE 'EVIL FREAKS', and YOU get to CHOOSE which freak you think is the least evil to provide law enforcement. Competition forces law enforcement businesses to be as benevolent as possible, otherwise they wont get your business.

[RCA]

Doesn't anarchy seem very collectivist? Catch phrases such as, "every man for himself", "the strongest will survive" and "the greater good" all have very little regard for an individuals natural born rights correct? I guess it's the full circle analogy. If you go too far to the left you get statism and no individual rights which is adjacent to the extreme right where you get anarchy and no individual rights.

[torchbearer]

lol 'when the founders were debating what government to install', clearly by the simple fact that they were debating to install government shows that they were all statists to a degree.

FYI: The founders werent gods, they were human beings. Austrian economics hand't even been invented yet.


Anarchy is not mob rule. Democracy is mob rule. Anarchy is the rule of those who are the smartest, strongest, and most determined, meaning THE FITTEST. Might does not make right under an anarchy unless the people want it to. If people want minimal government they will purchase justice from a less-oppressive company.


LOL again. You prove my point, that Constitutional government descends into mob rule.

You don't seem to understand the concept of competition. Competition means instead of having ONE EVIL FREAK = "The government", you have TWO OR MORE 'EVIL FREAKS', and YOU get to CHOOSE which freak you think is the least evil to provide law enforcement. Competition forces law enforcement businesses to be as benevolent as possible, otherwise they wont get your business.

Anarchy is mob rule. With no government. Me and My buds are grabbing our rifle and taking everything from you. Deal with it. We have more guns.

[Mini-Me]

An interesting discussion, but in the end it always comes back to what limits are acceptable for what would, if completely unregulated, be pure libertarian freedom, social and economic, to range within. Some say no limits, others say any limits the majority can be persuaded to approve, by whatever means. Get everybody to agree on what the limits should actually look like in all matters and the societal machinery can certainly be built to accomplish exactly that. It's the agreement part that's the rub.

The disagreement here ultimately comes down to two questions:
What are the inalienable natural rights that every individual possesses from birth, if any? (I would say life, liberty, and property, to condense them all into an easy phrase. Some people would disagree that property is a right, and this is the fundamental difference libertarians have with people who believe that a majority vote is enough to strip someone of their property.)
Should government instate laws for the sole sake of protecting people's natural rights (because they are rights after all), or should it instate arbitrarily invasive laws based on a majority vote or someone's subjective feelings about what "greater good" goals somehow trump individual rights? If people choose the latter, is the degree of arbitrary invasiveness going to be strictly limited at all? If so, where does it stop?
Personally, I would say that if there's any kind of widespread disagreement on whether the government should have any particular coercive power, it should not. After all, in the words of George Washington, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." If any significant number of people believe that they should not be forced to do something, they're almost certainly correct. Any attempt to force them is nothing other than the tyranny of the majority. In one sentence, you refer to limits "the majority can be persuaded to approve," and in the next sentence, you say, "Get everybody to agree..." These are contradictory notions. If everybody agrees on something and nobody whatsoever objects, then it should certainly be law, but the more people that disagree, the greater the minority that will be oppressed by what they consider an unjust use of force.

As a rule, government should be limited to instating only those laws that protect natural rights, and all law should be limited to the smallest jurisdiction that can reasonably enforce it (so it's imposed on the smallest possible number of people who disagree). Otherwise, what's the point of government other than an infrastructure for tyranny and a way for some to impose their "might makes right" will on others through that powerful infrastructure? While some may disagree on what our human rights are, I believe they basically amount to, "Leave me and my stuff in peace." In any case, I operate under the assumption that I'm correct, and those are the rights respect with regard to others, which I reserve for myself, and which I'm willing to defend...except of course when they're being violated by such an overwhelming force, like government, that I have no practical recourse at any given time. Anyway, while I accept some minor concessions on principle (and some do not) - such as very minimal taxation - to carry out the "necessary" functions of government to preserve these rights, I believe these rights are nevertheless absolute and certainly not subject to the whims of a majority vote. In other words, people have an obligation to respect, but not necessary to protect, other people's rights, but I'm willing to compromise on that and codify some protection into law, facilitated through minimal taxation. I'm also willing to consent to the will of the population when about 95+% of people agree on some other law (so long as the jurisdiction is proper), but that's quite a slippery slope, and I might not necessarily like it.



In the unregulated economy, after all, anyone is free to control the printing of currency presumably from their home printer, when they so chose. Of course how much value it would have would be subject to the other guy's confidence in the stuff in the proposed transaction. And of course if the stronger guy just enforces his will regardless of the approval of the weaker guy with regard to the transaction, without any regulatory authority then that's just how it goes, and the weaker guy has to look for someone weaker still to prey upon to recoup.


In an unregulated economy, people would not rely on 100% paper currencies for exactly this reason. The fact that the supply of paper currency can be manipulated at someone's whim is the biggest problem with having a paper currency backed by nothing limited in supply in the first place. Instead, people would freely decide to use some limited commodity as a medium of exchange - preferably one with a relatively stable supply, such as gold, which cannot be manipulated at will - and that would be their base currency. Of course, competing insured companies would exist who will store such physical commodities and issue paper certificates or electronic credits for the sake of convenience (in the case of electronic transfers, the actual currency would be frequently moved between holding companies, since they'd each want to make sure they and their customers are not getting screwed). If any particular company was found to be fraudulent and issuing more certificates than they have actual base currency, nobody would accept their certificates anymore, and that company would go out of business. In other words, the free market spreads and decentralizes risks of inflationary fraud...whereas with legal tender laws as we have today (which are regulations saying we must accept FRN's and only FRN's as legal tender, in violation of our right to exchange our goods and services for whatever we want), all risk is centralized and we're all at the mercy of the central bank.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to the stronger guy enforcing his will on the weaker guy during a voluntary transaction. In the free market, all transactions are voluntary, and competition keeps the power balance oscillating around equilibrium levels. Are you referring to coercion in contracts, e.g. Don Vito Corleone's "offer you can't refuse," at the point of a gun? If so, such violent extortion is a violation of rights, and so it is outlawed by common law which exists to preserve rights. Business regulation, on the other hand, does not preserve rights; rather, it violates rights in the pursuit of other goals.



The notion that some types of regulation aren't regulation and other types of regulation are regulation is complete nonsense of course. All regulation is regulation, and in the end it always comes back to the question of limits upon complete freedom, and if we're going to set them, where to set them, how to set them.

All regulation is regulation, but not all laws are regulation. There's a difference between laws that recognize and protect people's rights, and laws that arbitrarily violate people's rights for some other purpose. If really you want, you can choose to call all laws "regulations," but then you're only conflating these two very different types of laws through semantics, and your chosen terminology would not capture the fundamental difference between the two, nor would the widely recognized connotations of the word remain relevant.

[tremendoustie]

It's the "duh" stuff that I'm referring to. In order to have the "duh" regulations, there must be, well, regulations. I don't hear this point brought up in the daily clamoring for "DEREGULATION!".

YES! to laws and regulations against fraud and theft. NO! to "regulations" that try to prevent bad decisions or irresponsibility.

It's quite simple in my view -- one does not have the right to commit fraud or theft, but one has the right to act foolishly with one's finances. Of course, if one acts foolishly one should face the consequences, not get bailed out by taxpayers ...

[Truth Warrior]

Are were clamoring for deregulation a little too hard?

Are were clamoring for FREE market Laissez-faire hard enough?

The answers to BOTH questions is, NO!

[Conza88]

Anarchy is mob rule. With no government. Me and My buds are grabbing our rifle and taking everything from you. Deal with it. We have more guns.

See.. I'll hold back for the mean time, but just wondering: are you attaching Anarcho-Capitalism to your definition of anarchy?

;)

The post Austrian economist are all ancaps because they follow the logical progression of their premises to it's proper conclusion. If the Founding Fathers saw the state of America today... do you think they would have changed anything if they could have gone back? :rolleyes:

Bit of a no brainier imo.. the experiment with limited government failed. If they had the opportunity to read Rothbard, I think it's pretty clear they would have come to similar conclusions. (With hindsight anyway).

:) I also think RP is a closet anarcho-capitalist. But, like I would do... to further the cause of liberty - people ain't going to swallow that pill. He is the standard bearer who rallies people to the cause, sound bites is really all you get in the MSM.. and the Constitution is a great rallying point. We've got to aim for that anyway if we are to get to an anarcho-capitalist society anyway... So it makes sense.

[Truth Warrior]

Anarchy is mob rule. With no government. Me and My buds are grabbing our rifle and taking everything from you. Deal with it. We have more guns. :rolleyes:

How you get all of that BS from of "without a leader ( ruler )" is still beyond me. :p

[Mini-Me]

See.. I'll hold back for the mean time, but just wondering: are you attaching Anarcho-Capitalism to your definition of anarchy?

;)

The post Austrian economist are all ancaps because they follow the logical progression of their premises to it's proper conclusion. If the Founding Fathers saw the state of America today... do you think they would have changed anything if they could have gone back? :rolleyes:

Bit of a no brainier imo.. the experiment with limited government failed. If they had the opportunity to read Rothbard, I think it's pretty clear they would have come to similar conclusions. (With hindsight anyway).

:) I also think RP is a closet anarcho-capitalist. But, like I would do... to further the cause of liberty - people ain't going to swallow that pill. He is the standard bearer who rallies people to the cause, sound bites is really all you get in the MSM.. and the Constitution is a great rallying point. We've got to aim for that anyway if we are to get to an anarcho-capitalist society anyway... So it makes sense.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers and Framers would have changed some things if they knew what we know today, but I think it's quite a jump to assume they would have decided on anarcho-capitalism. They might have, and I'm certain at least a few would have pushed for it, but they also may have just decided to stick with something closer to the Articles of Confederation, or maybe change some things in the Constitution to give it teeth, etc. My concerns about the anarcho-capitalism alternative aside, I still think there plenty of ways to structure limited government to keep it limited. There've been several threads on it, actually. :)

In any case, I don't think RP is a closet anarcho-capitalist...particularly considering his views on abortion.

[literatim]

FYI: The founders werent gods, they were human beings. Austrian economics hand't even been invented yet.

I assume you have never read Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith)'s The Wealth of Nations.


Anarchy is not mob rule. Democracy is mob rule. Anarchy is the rule of those who are the smartest, strongest, and most determined, meaning THE FITTEST. Might does not make right under an anarchy unless the people want it to. If people want minimal government they will purchase justice from a less-oppressive company.

Anarchy is a vacuum that allows a dictator to rise in power. People don't have a choice in the matter when they are conquered and forced into either servitude or death.


LOL again. You prove my point, that Constitutional government descends into mob rule.

Constitutional government is about the law, not mob rule.


You don't seem to understand the concept of competition. Competition means instead of having ONE EVIL FREAK = "The government", you have TWO OR MORE 'EVIL FREAKS', and YOU get to CHOOSE which freak you think is the least evil to provide law enforcement. Competition forces law enforcement businesses to be as benevolent as possible, otherwise they wont get your business.

They kill each other and conquer each other's territories until their numbers are reduced to a few of the most powerful. It has happened throughout time.

[Conza88]

Constitutionally limited government HAS been tried.

This is the result.

Ok, next question....... :rolleyes:

[tremendoustie]

As we've discussed, no system of government, not even a constitutional republic, can withstand a lazy, uneducated populace, unwilling to protect their rights. That we are failing to protect our rights is an indictment of us as Americans, not our original system of government.

There are many examples of anarchism -- meaning lack of government -- leading to military rule or dictatorships, and seldom if ever does anarchism last as long as our republic has.

Yet, again, I do not see how anarchism differs from the constitutional republic we wish to see. In a way, every state is anarchist -- there are just tribes or groups who have greater or lesser power. Anarchists understand that there will be groups, and leaders of those groups in an anarchist society. So, why not consider our government such a group?

How does an anarchist define government, as distinct from an anarchist group or tribe? This is the question I was trying to get answered in the other thread, and never did. What is the difference? Is there a clearly defined point in the ascension of a naturally arising group when they have gained too much power to be a legit component of anarchist society, but have themselves become government? If so, what is that point?

[jmlfod87]

I assume you have never read Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith)'s The Wealth of Nations.

1. I have. 2. He wasn't a god. 3. He wasn't an Austrian.




Anarchy is a vacuum that allows a dictator to rise in power. People don't have a choice in the matter when they are conquered and forced into either servitude or death.


Anarchy is not a vacuum. Anarchy simply means there is competition for the ability to enforce laws. If one company is being too aggressive and tyrannical, customers (ie people) will simply do business with the competition. Anarchy allows for accountability in "governance".

As the saying goes, "The best government is the one that charges you the least extortion for leaving you alone."



Constitutional government is about the law, not mob rule.

Constitutions must be upheld by the mob, which is why the descend into mob rule.


They kill each other and conquer each other's territories until their numbers are reduced to a few of the most powerful. It has happened throughout time.

I'd still rather be living in a world where I have the choice between Pepsi and Coke, and not simply Coke....like today.

[Mini-Me]

Constitutionally limited government HAS been tried.

This is the result.

Ok, next question....... :rolleyes:

It's not necessarily the inevitable result, though. As I wrote in my last post:

I'm sure the Founding Fathers and Framers would have changed some things if they knew what we know today, but I think it's quite a jump to assume they would have decided on anarcho-capitalism. They might have, and I'm certain at least a few would have pushed for it, but they also may have just decided to stick with something closer to the Articles of Confederation, or maybe change some things in the Constitution to give it teeth, etc. My concerns about the anarcho-capitalism alternative aside, I still think there plenty of ways to structure limited government to keep it limited. There've been several threads on it, actually.

Quite frankly, anarchy has been tried as well. You might object and say that anarcho-capitalism hasn't, but that's merely an expression of anarchy under which enough people are educated enough in libertarian values to understand and respect life, liberty, and property and to ensure everyone else does, too. If you recall, human beings started out in a state of anarchy, yet oppressive governments were nevertheless established independently in just about every region of the world. A few places had ordered anarchy for a good amount of time (though it's questionable just how well rights were respected), but they were taken over by governments too.

I once read a quote that said something along the lines of, "Statists cannot imagine a world without an all-powerful government, and anarchists tend to forget why government was created in the first place." I would say that anarchists not only forget why legitimate rights-based government was created, but they also might be forgetting how illegitimate tyrannical government was created (remember that not all states are created equal: if a Constitutional republic could be made stable, which I think it can, it's certainly a better compromise than anarchy turning into flat-out totalitarianism). As I said above, human beings started out in a state of anarchy! If anarchy were inherently as stable a system as proponents suggest, government would not have evolved separately in almost every region of the world! Government evolved precisely because some people wanted organized protection against violence...and because others wanted organized gangs and/or followers to commit violence against others. Nobody wants violence done unto them, but even today, very few people today really base their morals off of basic rights or even empathy; rather, when it comes to emotionally charged situations involving anyone they consider beneath them (brown people halfway across the world, crime suspects, etc.), most limit their aggression only based on what they can and cannot get away with legally and socially (ironically, their reverent worship of the state helps keep them in line here).

You could argue that we've evolved a lot culturally and intellectually since those primitive days when governments first emerged from anarchy, but not all that much time has really passed. At our core, many of us are still the same stupid cavemen we've always been. Even in the past, according to anarcho-capitalist philosophy, an organized defense could easily have come about without the need for government - but as we very well know, that's exactly the institution that turned into government. In addition, it seems that people have not learned enough from history to avoid repeating past mistakes. The best reason I can see for things being any different now is that, on the whole, people have less collectivist hatred of each other than before. We're less likely to band together into racial or religious groups and just start slaughtering each other than we used to be (or maybe we're not? See Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq...). There are no longer unknown barbarian tribes with unknown ferocious numbers lying in wait over the hill at the end of the known world. Instead, our world is very well-connected, and even when we divide ourselves into groups (based on nations for example), most of us live in relative harmony. Therefore, it may be feasible to suggest that some of the paranoia fueling the initial creation of governments has evaporated, and the incentive to "band together to fight off the barbarian tribes" has waned. Still, we're talking right now about banding together (in a market sense) for the common defense, and I get the feeling that there just might not be much new today that would keep private defense companies from duking it out like rival clans of old and turning into the institution of the state as we know it (and remember, all states are not created equal).

If you want to see a chilling example of what might go wrong with anarchy, look at the black market. It's important to remember how violent the black market is and how mobs, mafias, and other gangs work: They don't just compete in the market. Instead, they kill their competitors and murder any disloyal or suspicious gang member. Although they only exist in today's economy because certain businesses are illegal, I don't think the root cause is the illegality of their business itself. Rather, other businesses are only less violent because they're protected by the law and the monopolistic government that enforces it. Unless you're part of the underworld, you always have someone big and strong to go to if your rights are being violated (and that's the government). You're not just asking for justice from a smaller organization among many, as you would in an anarchist society. Instead, you're asking for justice from an organization far more powerful than any other crime lord. Without such an immensely powerful organization to go to that everyone respects and fears (at the very least for perceived moral authority), you may not have anyone to turn to that cannot also be annihilated by the gang that's after you.

If you're part of a big, secretive corporation and you see your boss crack someone over the head with a baseball bat and kill him (like Al Capone does in The Untouchables ;)), are you going to report the crime in an anarcho-capitalist society? Probably not. Someone's rights have just been violated, and they're not able to press charges and call for justice, but you're going to mind your own business. After all, with no "society" entity to prosecute, you have to use your own funds, and that's on top of having to stick your neck on the line. The problem is, we're not talking about mafias anymore. We're potentially talking about every corporation big enough to be "off limits" for the private police (either through bribery or fear of significant retaliation).

You could say that mutual self-interest would keep corporate bosses from killing each other, and they'll use competition and fair private courts to mediate their differences instead...but if you're so certain that this would assuredly happen, why hasn't that already happened in the criminal underworld? Italian mafias have wartime, peacetime, etc., and different families may sit down at the same table to mediate their differences, but they have yet to develop any underworld courts of their own that everyone agrees to use to solve disputes without costly bloodshed. The same goes for street gangs. I believe that this is because no underworld court would actually be strong or respected enough to truly keep all of the families/gangs/etc. in line. Under an anarcho-capitalist system, this would extend to the rest of the market as well. Now, maybe the larger marketplace would create larger court systems and police forces that would be powerful enough to keep things under control...or maybe not. It depends partially on size of arms and partially on how much reverence people have for their "authority." If they're too powerful though, other problems might occur...

Here's what ultimately decides everything: What values do people in this society have? Just like a Constitutional republic, the stability of any anarchic system relies on an active and educated general population that understands how it should work. Anarcho-capitalism could only come about and have any hope of succeeding if people lived under a libertarian minarchist government for a long time, received their education on rights, and then proceeded to abolish the government. Otherwise, there would be some extremely dangerous problems:
Without an educated populace, the anarchic "legal" system would not be libertarian whatsoever; rather, it would most likely be an appalling system in which suspects accused of crimes would be considered guilty until proven innocent and lynched by a mob without a trial. Sadly, it is only fear of an invincible government that keeps the unethical mob in line. Under anarcho-capitalism, this would not necessarily be the case, because private agencies could quite possibly be overwhelmed. Ironically, the mob's brainwashed and religious worship of state is also a large part of what keeps them in line today.
When it comes to police, profit motive would probably prevent them from treating customers brutally, unless another more valuable customer wanted them to. However, what about brutality towards alleged perpetrators - especially those unprotected by any agency? Given people's temperament today, brutality against alleged perpetrators would fetch top dollar. Bribery fits very well into the business model. In a legal system that doesn't care about the non-aggression principle (since it only would if a truly significant portion of the population held it dear to their hearts), this would be unlikely to go punished by anyone. Seriously, a company that greatly profits from this behavior would not discourage their employees from acting in such a way. All other competing companies would probably do the same exact thing, and even if they didn't, they probably wouldn't want to get into a shoot-out with each other over it. That would be quite bad for business. Brutality against suspects and "undesirables" would just be the way of things, and we all know very well that the neocons would applaud it as being "tough on crime." Similarly, when the people in the lynch mob are the ones paying the police companies for protection, the police would not be likely to stop them if they had any desire to keep their customer base happy. As these companies became bigger, more entrenched, and more coercive, a movement of people like us might try to rebel or start up a competing company...but if they're going against a nationwide chain with a whole lot of backup forces, it would not end well.
Eventually, the larger agencies might start colluding with each other and dividing up territory to literally lord over as the de facto state. That would enable the greatest profits of all, since they could loot everyone just like any other state. Competition could not break up such a monopoly or oligopoly, precisely because this act of collusion would have occurred between the ordinary guardian of rights in the anarchist free market, thereby destroying the free market itself. Over time, these companies would acquire advanced weaponry (if they weren't already filling a dual role as a high-tech defense company against high-tech foreign assaults), and they would likely seek to betray each other, wage war, and expand their growing empire. This is a problem that a preexisting Constitutional republic can alleviate. Because it's specifically created with checks and balances from its inception (unlike a police company), a Constitutional republic takes a lot of slow erosion before it becomes tyrannical. Private organizations, however, would be totalitarian from the moment they obtained the coercive powers of the state and a territorial monopoly.

I'm not trying to say that anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly work. It's quite possible that it could...but it would only have a chance in hell if it evolved from an already libertarian society with a minarchist government, and even then, there are no guarantees. My main point is this: Both anarchy and Constitutional republics are fallible. The question of which one is more inherently unstable given either an educated public or a barbaric public is yet to be answered conclusively. My personal preference is for a Constitutional republic, because it's the "devil I know" and because there are very strong checks that could have been added to our Constitution but weren't.

[Conza88]

It's not necessarily the inevitable result, though. As I wrote in my last post:


No, it is inevitable - that is the nature of the state. History is CRYSTAL clear about this.


Quite frankly, anarchy has been tried as well. You might object and say that anarcho-capitalism hasn't, but that's merely an expression of anarchy under which enough people are educated enough in libertarian values to understand and respect life, liberty, and property and to ensure everyone else does, too. If you recall, human beings started out in a state of anarchy, yet oppressive governments were nevertheless established independently in just about every region of the world. A few places had ordered anarchy for a good amount of time (though it's questionable just how well rights were respected), but they were taken over by governments too.

I once read a quote that said something along the lines of, "Statists cannot imagine a world without an all-powerful government, and anarchists tend to forget why government was created in the first place." I would say that anarchists not only forget why legitimate rights-based government was created, but they also might be forgetting how illegitimate tyrannical government was created (remember that not all states are created equal: if a Constitutional republic could be made stable, which I think it can, it's certainly a better compromise than anarchy turning into flat-out totalitarianism). As I said above, human beings started out in a state of anarchy! If anarchy were inherently as stable a system as proponents suggest, government would not have evolved separately in almost every region of the world! Government evolved precisely because some people wanted organized protection against violence...and because others wanted organized gangs and/or followers to commit violence against others. Nobody wants violence done unto them, but even today, very few people today really base their morals off of basic rights or even empathy; rather, when it comes to emotionally charged situations involving anyone they consider beneath them (brown people halfway across the world, crime suspects, etc.), most limit their aggression only based on what they can and cannot get away with legally and socially (ironically, their reverent worship of the state helps keep them in line here).

Fail. Government is different from state. :cool:



You could argue that we've evolved a lot culturally and intellectually since those primitive days when governments first emerged from anarchy, but not all that much time has really passed. At our core, many of us are still the same stupid cavemen we've always been. Even in the past, according to anarcho-capitalist philosophy, an organized defense could easily have come about without the need for government - but as we very well know, that's exactly the institution that turned into government. In addition, it seems that people have not learned enough from history to avoid repeating past mistakes. The best reason I can see for things being any different now is that, on the whole, people have less collectivist hatred of each other than before. We're less likely to band together into racial or religious groups and just start slaughtering each other than we used to be (or maybe we're not? See Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq...). There are no longer unknown barbarian tribes with unknown ferocious numbers lying in wait over the hill at the end of the known world. Instead, our world is very well-connected, and even when we divide ourselves into groups (based on nations for example), most of us live in relative harmony. Therefore, it may be feasible to suggest that some of the paranoia fueling the initial creation of governments has evaporated, and the incentive to "band together to fight off the barbarian tribes" has waned. Still, we're talking right now about banding together (in a market sense) for the common defense, and I get the feeling that there just might not be much new today that would keep private defense companies from duking it out like rival clans of old and turning into the institution of the state as we know it (and remember, all states are not created equal).

If you want to see a chilling example of what might go wrong with anarchy, look at the black market. It's important to remember how violent the black market is and how mobs, mafias, and other gangs work: They don't just compete in the market. Instead, they kill their competitors and murder any disloyal or suspicious gang member. Although they only exist in today's economy because certain businesses are illegal, I don't think the root cause is the illegality of their business itself. Rather, other businesses are only less violent because they're protected by the law and the monopolistic government that enforces it. Unless you're part of the underworld, you always have someone big and strong to go to if your rights are being violated (and that's the government). You're not just asking for justice from a smaller organization among many, as you would in an anarchist society. Instead, you're asking for justice from an organization far more powerful than any other crime lord. Without such an immensely powerful organization to go to that everyone respects and fears (at the very least for perceived moral authority), you may not have anyone to turn to that cannot also be annihilated by the gang that's after you.

If you're part of a big, secretive corporation and you see your boss crack someone over the head with a baseball bat and kill him (like Al Capone does in The Untouchables ;)), are you going to report the crime in an anarcho-capitalist society? Probably not. Someone's rights have just been violated, and they're not able to press charges and call for justice, but you're going to mind your own business. After all, with no "society" entity to prosecute, you have to use your own funds, and that's on top of having to stick your neck on the line. The problem is, we're not talking about mafias anymore. We're potentially talking about every corporation big enough to be "off limits" for the private police (either through bribery or fear of significant retaliation).

You could say that mutual self-interest would keep corporate bosses from killing each other, and they'll use competition and fair private courts to mediate their differences instead...but if you're so certain that this would assuredly happen, why hasn't that already happened in the criminal underworld? Italian mafias have wartime, peacetime, etc., and different families may sit down at the same table to mediate their differences, but they have yet to develop any underworld courts of their own that everyone agrees to use to solve disputes without costly bloodshed. The same goes for street gangs. I believe that this is because no underworld court would actually be strong or respected enough to truly keep all of the families/gangs/etc. in line. Under an anarcho-capitalist system, this would extend to the rest of the market as well. Now, maybe the larger marketplace would create larger court systems and police forces that would be powerful enough to keep things under control...or maybe not. It depends partially on size of arms and partially on how much reverence people have for their "authority." If they're too powerful though, other problems might occur...

Here's what ultimately decides everything: What values do people in this society have? Just like a Constitutional republic, the stability of any anarchic system relies on an active and educated general population that understands how it should work. Anarcho-capitalism could only come about and have any hope of succeeding if people lived under a libertarian minarchist government for a long time, received their education on rights, and then proceeded to abolish the government. Otherwise, there would be some extremely dangerous problems:
Without an educated populace, the anarchic "legal" system would not be libertarian whatsoever; rather, it would most likely be an appalling system in which suspects accused of crimes would be considered guilty until proven innocent and lynched by a mob without a trial. Sadly, it is only fear of an invincible government that keeps the unethical mob in line. Under anarcho-capitalism, this would not necessarily be the case, because private agencies could quite possibly be overwhelmed. Ironically, the mob's brainwashed and religious worship of state is also a large part of what keeps them in line today.
When it comes to police, profit motive would probably prevent them from treating customers brutally, unless another more valuable customer wanted them to. However, what about brutality towards alleged perpetrators - especially those unprotected by any agency? Given people's temperament today, brutality against alleged perpetrators would fetch top dollar. Bribery fits very well into the business model. In a legal system that doesn't care about the non-aggression principle (since it only would if a truly significant portion of the population held it dear to their hearts), this would be unlikely to go punished by anyone. Seriously, a company that greatly profits from this behavior would not discourage their employees from acting in such a way. All other competing companies would probably do the same exact thing, and even if they didn't, they probably wouldn't want to get into a shoot-out with each other over it. That would be quite bad for business. Brutality against suspects and "undesirables" would just be the way of things, and we all know very well that the neocons would applaud it as being "tough on crime." Similarly, when the people in the lynch mob are the ones paying the police companies for protection, the police would not be likely to stop them if they had any desire to keep their customer base happy. As these companies became bigger, more entrenched, and more coercive, a movement of people like us might try to rebel or start up a competing company...but if they're going against a nationwide chain with a whole lot of backup forces, it would not end well.
Eventually, the larger agencies might start colluding with each other and dividing up territory to literally lord over as the de facto state. That would enable the greatest profits of all, since they could loot everyone just like any other state. Competition could not break up such a monopoly or oligopoly, precisely because this act of collusion would have occurred between the ordinary guardian of rights in the anarchist free market, thereby destroying the free market itself. Over time, these companies would acquire advanced weaponry (if they weren't already filling a dual role as a high-tech defense company against high-tech foreign assaults), and they would likely seek to betray each other, wage war, and expand their growing empire. This is a problem that a preexisting Constitutional republic can alleviate. Because it's specifically created with checks and balances from its inception (unlike a police company), a Constitutional republic takes a lot of slow erosion before it becomes tyrannical. Private organizations, however, would be totalitarian from the moment they obtained the coercive powers of the state and a territorial monopoly.

I'm not trying to say that anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly work. It's quite possible that it could...but it would only have a chance in hell if it evolved from an already libertarian society with a minarchist government, and even then, there are no guarantees. My main point is this: Both anarchy and Constitutional republics are fallible. The question of which one is more inherently unstable given either an educated public or a barbaric public is yet to be answered conclusively. My personal preference is for a Constitutional republic, because it's the "devil I know" and because there are very strong checks that could have been added to our Constitution but weren't.

Sorry, I just really couldn't be f---ked reading your essays aye... really doesn't rate high on my subjective value scale. I mean really, it's actually the product of a good mind to condense your points. The MAJORITY of your posts are filled up with you trying to think of what I will reply with and then you addressing your own proposed hypotheticals... with your own flawed assumptions as the foundation.

How about you focus on what you think, and not what I think. Because you've continued to get it wrong when you've tried. If you want to keep trying that approach, whats the point of having me around? :rolleyes: You can go have your little fantastical debates all by yourself. You make it a chore.

[angelatc]

In the uproar over regulation vs. deregulation, do we tend to cling to deregulation a little to strongly? I mean, in order to enforce crimes or torts, regulation must be present or if not, tort reform must take place correct? I think instead of constantly clamoring for complete deregulation, we need to be trying to prevent excess regulation. Do you all see where I'm going with this?

I'd like to see you going towards a "states rights" kind of thing. :)

[revolutionary8]

This is where I think people forget that not all laws are regulation. When I think of regulation, I think of arbitrary rules, especially instated at the federal level, which blatantly violate the property rights and liberty of both business owners and others in order to supposedly facilitate some "noble cause." In contrast, laws against fraud have been around for ages, and they fall more within the realm of common law, e.g. "don't kill your neighbor" law. Fraud in particular is basically the deliberate and/or malicious breach of a contract, whether explicit or implicit. These kind of laws are entirely valid, because they protect against aggression/"violence." In addition, it's also important to remember that the proper level of government for legislating and enforcing them is the state level.

At the federal level, absolutely no business regulation is needed nor authorized by the Constitution, save for the restriction that states may prevent states from conducting trade wars and erecting tariffs against each other. There's a very good reason for this: It's because when you allow Congress to legislate any arbitrary regulatory legislation, you're not just authorizing them to make "good" laws. You're simultaneously authorizing them to legislate ANY arbitrary law affecting industry, and by merely giving them this power to use their best judgment, you're opening Pandora's Box. First of all, it's important to remember that even benevolent and well-intentioned legislators are not versed in economics - and when they have some clue, they've been given their crash course by the same interventionist economists that engineered our ongoing meltdown right now. Because of this, legislators are very short-sighted and think nothing of instating legislation that they "think" will help some perceived problem in the market place, when that very law is likely to create other more significant problems in other areas or even undermine its primary purpose. Certain laws like minimum wage "sound good" to legislators for helping the poor, but they ultimately make things worse. In reality, almost all business regulations have such unforeseen and undesirable consequences (and legislators hardly ever pinpoint their cause, so they "fix" them with more regulation), because among other things, almost all regulations raise the cost of market entry and hamper competition (there are books about how even antitrust laws do this, by the way - the very laws that were meant to foster competition). This is because it not only costs money to comply with regulations, it costs money to do legal work and prove to the government that you're complying. Up to a point, incumbent corporations love regulations and will even lobby for them or make sure they have a hand in deciding some of the details, because regulations will restrain most of their competition (of course, past that point, regulations will just cut into their profits - it's a double-edged sword). This is where you get into corporate welfare and regulation that's specifically malevolent. In fact, it's important to realize that corporate personhood itself is illegitimate federal regulation which unfairly limits the liability of corporate shareholders - even to less than their stake in the company - at the expense of other members of the population. The bottom line is...there's no such thing is permitting "moderate" regulation. If you allow Congress to "use their best judgment" and legislate any arbitrary regulation, their very authority to do so will land us exactly where we are now: Corporate fascism.

Concerning the General Welfare clause (Article 1 section 8) of the Constitution, Hugh Williamson wrote:
"If congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their hands, they may establish teachers in every state, county and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their hands the education of the children; establish in like manner schools throughout the union, they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post raods. In short, everything from the highest object of state legislature down to the most minute objects of police would be thrown under the power of congress. For every object I have mentioned would admit the application and might be called, if congress pleased, provisions of the General Welfare."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=168860

[Brian4Liberty]

Read your Austrian economics.

Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, in case you didn't know. All Austrian economists are.

:rolleyes: Ok, we'll go do that right away... We'll be sure to tell Ron what he is next time we see him.

[Dreamofunity]

As we've discussed, no system of government,
How does an anarchist define government, as distinct from an anarchist group or tribe? This is the question I was trying to get answered in the other thread, and never did. What is the difference? Is there a clearly defined point in the ascension of a naturally arising group when they have gained too much power to be a legit component of anarchist society, but have themselves become government? If so, what is that point?

The groups would be voluntary, government is not.

[Smiley Gladhands]

I tend to think that regulating insurance companies makes sense.

I mean, if I sold you insurance on your $200k house and I had no collateral whatsoever to cover potential claims, then I have basically engaged in fraud. I accepted money for a service that I will not be able to perform.

So I tend to think that government has some role in making sure that insurance companies are able to hold up their end of the bargain, especially since if they can't then suing them won't do you a lick of good.

Of course, that isn't without its own unintended consequences. Suddenly government gets to decide what is acceptable collateral and what isn't...it also gives insurance companies incentive to lobby government for preferential treatment, and leads to 150 Billion dollar handouts when their risk controls inevitably blow up.

But yes, I tend to think that some amount of regulation is reasonable. However, finding the limit of reasonableness is tricky.

IMO.

[literatim]

Anarchy is not a vacuum. Anarchy simply means there is competition for the ability to enforce laws. If one company is being too aggressive and tyrannical, customers (ie people) will simply do business with the competition. Anarchy allows for accountability in "governance".

You're kidding, right? What 'laws' are you talking about in anarchy?

[Elwar]

Unfortunately too many overhauls are done in the name of "deregulation" when in fact it is an alternate/worse regulation.

In Georgia they "deregulated" the gas industry. Instead of having one source of gas that had a fixed price to the consumer, they opened up the gas industry to competition by providing one source of gas with a fixed price to multiple companies that "competed" for your service.

Not surprisingly, these "competing" companies all bought the cheap gas and jacked up the rate.
The state didn't allow competing companies to actually supply the gas.

[tangent4ronpaul]

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Federal government to "regulate" anything!

Regulators, by their nature, are evil - here we have unelected bureaucrats making rules that carry the force of law but without the accountability or redress of the people.

That said, some "regulations" are in theory good - Like Hams stay in the Ham bands, TV and radio stay in your bands - but I don't know of anything that gives the Federal government permission to make rules or laws over the broadcast spectrum. Someone surely needs to.

OTOH: too often "regulations" are used to profit one business sector while eliminating competition or otherwise for someones pet agenda - take the inspection and licensing of any facility that produces dairy products as an example, that had driven all the small, local producers out of business.

If I could, I'd tell each regulatory Agency to trim down their regulations to 20 and write them in clear, simple language in a document no longer than 5 pages. Then abolish each agency, and send the "short list" documents to Congress for consideration to make into long term law.

-t

[jmlfod87]

You're kidding, right? What 'laws' are you talking about in anarchy?

The laws that the companies choose to enforce, such as no one can steal. If there are two companies and one company has a law against theft and the other does not then customers will likely purchase the service of the company that upholds laws against stealing. Thus, the most morally righteous company will be the most profitable and powerful.